Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

The Blind Boys of High CourtFollow

#1 Jul 31 2014 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
SCJ Ginsberg on the Hobby Lobby Case:

Quote:
Speaking with Katie Couric on Yahoo Global News, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that five of her male counterparts on the court have “a blind spot” when it comes to women’s issues.

After noting that all three female justices were in the minority in the recent Hobby Lobby decision, Couric asked Ginsburg whether she “believed the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision.”

Following a long pause, Ginsburg said, “I would have to say, ‘No.’”

You can hear/watch the interview in it's entirety HERE.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#2 Jul 31 2014 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
Yeah, but a woman's opinion about her body is less important than a dude's freedom to oppress under the guise of religion. And make sure it's Christian or it doesn't count.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Jul 31 2014 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
God says you have to keep that rape-baby he gifted you, but hey at least you don't have to wear a hijab! Of course if you were wearing one, and not that low-cut tank top, it would have never happened in the first place, but we'll save that for another day.
Yay freedom! Smiley: yippee

Edited, Jul 31st 2014 8:40am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4 Aug 01 2014 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
God also says to kill your wife if she isn't a virgin on your wedding night.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Aug 01 2014 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
God also says to kill your wife if she isn't a virgin on your wedding night.
But don't harm the minute blob of cells she carries in her womb. That would be murder.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#6 Aug 01 2014 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
God also says to kill your wife if she isn't a virgin on your wedding night.
But don't harm the minute blob of cells she carries in her womb. That would be murder.


Unless God tells you to, of course. Then it's a laudable example of faith.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#7 Aug 01 2014 at 4:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
The split was ideological, and not gender based. If there had been any mix of sexes among the conservative and liberal justices, the ruling would have been the same. To make this about the *** of the justices is a pure fabricated cheap shot. Let's appoint female liberal justices so that we can call conservatives sexist any time a ruling on an issue involving ***/gender doesn't go our way. Kinda like electing a black president so you can call conservatives racist any time they oppose something the president is doing.

The liberal bag of tricks isn't that hard to figure out and quite consistently revolves around finding something, anything, other than the issue itself to use to argue their side. Let's not talk about rights and the constitution. Nope! Let's just call the other side sexist because they have penises and thus can't possibly understand a woman's point of view. It's not about point of view (or it shouldn't). And it's not even about ***. It's about whether the government can force an employer to provide services to an employee that violates the employers religious beliefs. The alignment of the specific issue at hand and *** is done deliberately to create the perception of competing rights, but the ruling would (should!) be the same if it were some service provided to men which violated the employers beliefs.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Aug 01 2014 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
The government can force a business to do a lot of different things, one is to provide health care at a specific minimum level. Businesses cannot have religious beliefs, the owner is not providing anything, their business is.

It's also always telling that often men's products like Viagra apparently are fine, even though they have far less use than women's birth control.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#9 Aug 01 2014 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based. If there had been any mix of sexes among the conservative and liberal justices, the ruling would have been the same.

I don't really believe that. There's been numerous senate bills regarding gender issues and the GOP splits towards the Democratic side are pretty much always the female wing of the GOP senate.

While the senate isn't the SCotUS, I think it gives a decent illustration of ideology in conflict with gender.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Aug 01 2014 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's about whether the government can force an employer to provide services to an employee that violates the employers religious beliefs. The alignment of the specific issue at hand and *** is done deliberately to create the perception of competing rights, but the ruling would (should!) be the same if it were some service provided to men which violated the employers beliefs.


Sir Xsarus wrote:
The government can force a business to do a lot of different things, one is to provide health care at a specific minimum level. Businesses cannot have religious beliefs, the owner is not providing anything, their business is.


Perhaps if you don't change the word I used, your response would be more useful. Let's recall that we already had this discussion (months ago), and it was explained that in this case the business was wholly owned by a single family, and thus the religious beliefs of the "owner/employer" did apply. We're not talking about a publicly traded corporation here.

Let me also point out that I disagree that the government should have the authority to force employers (of any kind) to provide any specific benefits, health or otherwise. It's because we've crept the power of the government into this area that we're now having to deal with this sort of issue in the first place. If we left it in the hands of negotiation between the employer/employee as to what pay/benefits/etc were involved and kept the government out of it, we'd have no need to go to court over crap like this.

Quote:
It's also always telling that often men's products like Viagra apparently are fine, even though they have far less use than women's birth control.


Let's also be clear on two things:

1. The issue isn't what the differences are, but who makes the decision. It's about the government forcing the employer to provide something rather than letting the employer make that decision themselves.

2. In this particular case, the issue was with birth control that acts as an abortive process (iud, day after pills, etc). Again, I personally think that *any* mandate is wrong, but if you're going to make a particular comparison, you should at least make the right one. This was not about "things which help people have ***", but "things which terminate a pregnancy". Viagra doesn't do that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Aug 01 2014 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Perhaps if you don't change the word I used, your response would be more useful. Let's recall that we already had this discussion (months ago), and it was explained that in this case the business was wholly owned by a single family, and thus the religious beliefs of the "owner/employer" did apply. We're not talking about a publicly traded corporation here.
right, and maybe you missed it, but I'm very clearly stating that I do not think this should be the case. As soon as you are interacting in a commercial setting with employers and customers you are not an individual with beliefs, but a business. I'm not using the word employer, because it falsely equates the people running a business with the business. You used this word on purpose for the very same reason.

Quote:
Let me also point out that I disagree that the government should have the authority to force employers (of any kind) to provide any specific benefits, health or otherwise. It's because we've crept the power of the government into this area that we're now having to deal with this sort of issue in the first place. If we left it in the hands of negotiation between the employer/employee as to what pay/benefits/etc were involved and kept the government out of it, we'd have no need to go to court over crap like this.
I'm trying to point out that the government has the authority to put in place regulations that control how a business is run. you may agree with certain regulations and disagree with other ones, but that doesn't invalidate the authority of the government in this situation. So it's nice that you have something against health care, but is pretty much irrelevant.

Edited, Aug 1st 2014 6:41pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#12 Aug 01 2014 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Gbaji would love to deregulate businesses...until he'd realize that people's personal assets would become fair game in lawsuits, and then he'd be right off that bandwagon. You want government off your back? Then say goodbye to limited liability. Oh, and say goodbye to low corporate tax rate...your business is a person, it gets taxed like one, which will mean 40% in most cases.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#13 Aug 01 2014 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
right, and maybe you missed it, but I'm very clearly stating that I do not think this should be the case. As soon as you are interacting in a commercial setting with employers and customers you are not an individual with beliefs, but a business.


A business owned by a single person (or family) is the property of that person or family. There must be some limit to what the government can require you to do with your property, right? Does the fact that you own a home mean the government can force you to allow others to live there (there's a whole amendment to the constitution sayin that it can't btw). You're focusing on the idea that a publicly accessible business must comply with certain rules, and I agree with that, to a point. Discrimination against employees or customers, for example.

But I do believe that a business is still the property of the owner, and that the employer and employees enter into an agreement as part of the employment contract and ought to be as free as possible in that regard. Where the **** does the government come in requiring that the employer must give the employee something that perhaps neither of them want to be part of said contract? As I said earlier, for me, this is a broad freedom issue. The government shouldn't be involved in this at all. Period. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS already made a previous (IMO bad) ruling on this, and now is subjecting itself to a whole second wave of more specific cases which it could have avoided.

Quote:
I'm not using the word employer, because it falsely equates the people running a business with the business. You used this word on purpose for the very same reason.


I used the word employer because in this case we are directly dealing with an issue involving employment. Not customers. Not products. Not purchasing or selling. We're dealing with the agreement between the employee and the employer. Hence, "employer" is the better word.

Quote:
I'm trying to point out that the government has the authority to put in place regulations that control how a business is run. you may agree with certain regulations and disagree with other ones, but that doesn't invalidate the authority of the government in this situation. So it's nice that you have something against health care, but is pretty much irrelevant.


Sure. And if we were talking about regulating the byproducts of the industrial processes a business is involved in which may end out in the water table, or the chemical additives in food being served by a business, or the workplace conditions in the business, or any of a number of other things revolving around the concept of minimizing the harmful conditions/results of operating a business, I'd be in full agreement with you. But in this case we're talking about requiring that an employer provide to an employee a specific set of benefits that the state thinks all employees should receive, even if neither the employer nor the employee want that benefit to be part of their employment contract. You just can't equate these two things. And yes, at the risk of being my usual conservative broken record, this is yet another case of the whole "positive versus negative rights" concept. As a conservative I believe there's a huge difference between preventing negative effects and requiring positive ones. Thus, it's reasonable to create regulations to reduce the potential for harmful health effects in a working environment but *not* reasonable to require that employers provide health benefits to employees.

To a liberal, both of those are regulations which improve the health of workers, and thus are the same. To a conservative, one of those limits harmful actions while the other mandates helpful action and are thus completely different. We just measure using a different yardstick is all. And to me, it's bad enough that we allow the government to mandate the benefits which must be included in an employment contract at all and even worse to even contemplate doing so in a way that intentionally violates the employers religious beliefs. Also, I believe that had we made the correct decision in the first place (ie: don't do this at all), then the second case doesn't come up. We've put ourselves in the position of having to decide which religious beliefs are sufficient to warrant exception to the law and which aren't. A position I don't think any of us are comfortable with.


It would have been much better to simply reject the mandate in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Aug 01 2014 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
gbaji wrote:
If there had been any mix of sexes among the conservative and liberal justices, the ruling would have been the same.
I have just as much evidence as you do saying it wouldn't. You've lost a step, old man.

Edited, Aug 1st 2014 9:45pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Aug 01 2014 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Gbaji would love to deregulate businesses...until he'd realize that people's personal assets would become fair game in lawsuits, and then he'd be right off that bandwagon. You want government off your back? Then say goodbye to limited liability. Oh, and say goodbye to low corporate tax rate...your business is a person, it gets taxed like one, which will mean 40% in most cases.


Again though, we need to make a distinction between regulation that prevents businesses from causing harm, and regulation which requires businesses to provide help. It's patently unfair to just broad brush my position as deregulation, with the implication that we must accept an "all or nothing" condition here. There are many types of regulation. Let's actually look at the case before us instead of making broad associative arguments, ok?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Aug 01 2014 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
And, again, pay your people better, employers. So they can, y'know, just buy their own health insurance.


I read an article recently (sorry no link, I'm sure you can Google it) that stated Wal-Mart's NET PROFIT last year was 10 billion $US. The total burden to US taxpayers due to Wal-Mart employees's was 2.3 billion $US. There is NO @#%^ING excuse for that. Greed. Total disregard for fellow humans. Indefensible.

Edited, Aug 1st 2014 10:27pm by Bijou

Edited, Aug 1st 2014 10:28pm by Bijou
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#17 Aug 01 2014 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I read an article recently (sorry no link, I'm sure you can Google it) that stated Wal-Mart's NET PROFIT last year was 10 billion $US. The total burden to US taxpayers due to Wal-Mart employees's was 2.3 billion $US. There is NO @#%^ING excuse for that. Greed. Total disregard for fellow humans. Indefensible.

There's a controversy going on right now because Walgreens (HQ in Chicago) is considering moving to London to avoid high US taxes. (Of course if a person tried hiding their money in a foreign account, it'd be tax evasion). So I thought to myself "wow, I didn't know Walgreens was in so much financial trouble." Then I looked up their annual report: they've made $2 billion net profit every year since at least 2009.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#18 Aug 02 2014 at 6:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
I read an article recently (sorry no link, I'm sure you can Google it) that stated Wal-Mart's NET PROFIT last year was 10 billion $US. The total burden to US taxpayers due to Wal-Mart employees's was 2.3 billion $US. There is NO @#%^ING excuse for that. Greed. Total disregard for fellow humans. Indefensible.

Haha, I saw the president of the American Enterprise Institute on some PBS Sunday show last week talking about this. His defense of it came down to (obviously paraphrased) "Well, if they had to pay their workers more then they'd just fire a bunch of them and then the unemployment rate would be the fault of those who complained." When asked if maybe they couldn't use some of the massive profits to pay them a living wage, he said "Of course not, those belong to the shareholders and it'd be unfair to take those from them".

So there ya go. Conservative principles are "The rest of you subsidize our company so we can get rich. Oh, and then call the people we refuse to pay more the '47%' who are on welfare and refuse to take any responsibility for their lives."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Aug 02 2014 at 8:03 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Well gee, if you want to make a livable wage then all you need to do is head your own Fortune 500 company, what's wrong with you!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#20 Aug 02 2014 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Really, the solution to this problem is for healthcare not being part of the employee compensation package.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#21 Aug 02 2014 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Really, the solution to this problem is for healthcare not being part of the employee compensation package.

I don't think that's a problem for most Walmart employees.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Aug 02 2014 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Really, the solution to this problem is for healthcare not being part of the employee compensation package.

I don't think that's a problem for most Walmart employees.


Sort of. We have designed a system which makes the assumption of employer being the vendors of health insurance. This means that the employees of firms not offering health care are especially disadvantaged. With a fully public healthcare model, employers couldn't restrict the plans chosen.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#23 Aug 02 2014 at 11:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I was mainly being flip re: Walmart not providing insurance but I agree that a public healthcare system would be best.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Aug 02 2014 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Free healthcare! Free healthcare! Free healthcare!
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#25 Aug 02 2014 at 5:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
And, again, pay your people better, employers. So they can, y'know, just buy their own health insurance.


But do you see how something like Obamacare makes that less likely, and not more? It's about the portion of a persons compensation which they get to choose what to spend it on shrinking. Yes. A percentage of workers were not being paid enough to be able to purchase their own health care. However, the dirty little secret of the health care debate is that a much larger percentage of workers earned enough to afford to purchase health care but choose not to. Choice. That's freedom. That's what's being taken away with all of this.

The overwhelming majority of employees do earn enough to obtain health insurance if they want to. The point is that they could choose to do that if they wanted before, and now they have no choice. Even if they are young and healthy and have no need for health insurance, they are forced by ACA to purchase it. And that's the real issue here. Hiding behind the small exception cases while ignoring the much bigger issue at hand is foolish IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Aug 02 2014 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
However, the dirty little secret of the health care debate is that a much larger percentage of workers earned enough to afford to purchase health care but choose not to.

Much larger than "zero" in a cosmic sense, I suppose.

Kaiser Family Foundation wrote:
Why are so many Americans uninsured?
The high cost of insurance is the main reason why people go without coverage. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and gaps in eligibility for public coverage leave many without an affordable option.
[...]
Who are the uninsured?
The majority of the uninsured are in low-income working families. Reflecting the more limited availability of public coverage, adults are more likely to be uninsured than children. People of color are at higher risk of being uninsured than non-Hispanic Whites.

KFF wrote:
Uninsured individuals report that cost poses a major barrier to purchasing coverage. In 2012, 61% of adults said that one of the reasons they are uninsured is either because the cost is too high or because they lost their job, compared to 1.5% who said they are uninsured because they do not need coverage
(bolding mine)

Screenshot


Edited, Aug 2nd 2014 8:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 73 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (73)